Illegal Salvage from Repulse and Prince of Wales Wrecks
And I suspect the ammo itself could be quite unstable. It's why they are being very circumspect about clearing the SS Richard Montgomery in the Thames.
I don't get it. Steel - OK (for the reasons already posted). But why ammo - potentially very dangerous ammo?
Why would they be going after the ammo? Aside from being 80 years old and potentially unstable (and hence quite dangerous), why would they want ammo that's spent the last 8 decades underwater?
I don't get it. Steel - OK (for the reasons already posted). But why ammo - potentially very dangerous ammo?
I don't get it. Steel - OK (for the reasons already posted). But why ammo - potentially very dangerous ammo?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
Why would they be going after the ammo? Aside from being 80 years old and potentially unstable (and hence quite dangerous), why would they want ammo that's spent the last 8 decades underwater?
I don't get it. Steel - OK (for the reasons already posted). But why ammo - potentially very dangerous ammo?
I don't get it. Steel - OK (for the reasons already posted). But why ammo - potentially very dangerous ammo?
- Stupid
- Enterprenurial
- Greedy
- Stupid
The heads are also good, there are several types, and after being cleared can make good paperweights....
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,854 Likes
on
1,222 Posts
well that means the only way the paper would blow away is if it detonates, but that would blow the house away too
The following users liked this post:
Having a 8 decade old unstable 15" shell stashed on your trawler is Darwin Award territory - if one of those suckers detonated on-board there wouldn't be much of anything left.
A few gunnery facts.
Given the date of sinking they are AP 15 inch shells on Repulse with a bursting charge of 48.5 lbs (22 kg) of 70/30 shellite. Prince of Wales had 14 inch guns the APC shells had a smaller 39.8 lb (18.1 kg) charge. Later in the war KGVs carried 5 HE shells v 95 AP per gun the HE shells had a charge of c107 lbs. (48.5 kg). Still, I wouldn't want to be near one that could go off at any time. The 4" HA/LA guns on Repulse used solid shells and 5.25" HA/LA guns on PoW used a combination of shells with bursting charges of 3.25 lbs (SAP) / 6 lbs (HE) of TNT. In PoW the guns had a theoretical AA ceiling of 46,500 feet, a report on the loss of PoW concluded the guns would have been much more effective against the attacking aircraft if the crews hadn't had insufficient training.
Given the date of sinking they are AP 15 inch shells on Repulse with a bursting charge of 48.5 lbs (22 kg) of 70/30 shellite. Prince of Wales had 14 inch guns the APC shells had a smaller 39.8 lb (18.1 kg) charge. Later in the war KGVs carried 5 HE shells v 95 AP per gun the HE shells had a charge of c107 lbs. (48.5 kg). Still, I wouldn't want to be near one that could go off at any time. The 4" HA/LA guns on Repulse used solid shells and 5.25" HA/LA guns on PoW used a combination of shells with bursting charges of 3.25 lbs (SAP) / 6 lbs (HE) of TNT. In PoW the guns had a theoretical AA ceiling of 46,500 feet, a report on the loss of PoW concluded the guns would have been much more effective against the attacking aircraft if the crews hadn't had insufficient training.
Apparently 100 'live' shells found on the ship
https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/05...ng-ww2-wrecks/
As mentioned above, the authorities found shells and scrap metal believed to be from PoW on a jetty at Tanjung Belungkor.
According to the New Straights Times:
Penalty is up to 2 years in prison and/or MYR100K fine (GBP17.5K / USD 21.5K)
https://www.overtdefense.com/2023/05...ng-ww2-wrecks/
As mentioned above, the authorities found shells and scrap metal believed to be from PoW on a jetty at Tanjung Belungkor.
According to the New Straights Times:
Investigators also found 46 unexploded ordnances comprising 135mm and 40mm artillery shells, believed to be from the warship.
They should also confiscate the ship as well,otherwise the Chinese will just pay the bill and try again...
The following 2 users liked this post by sycamore:
The following users liked this post:
Unfortunately this is not new. Before the UK withdrawal from the Far East, the resident maritime squadron (205) used to keep an eye on the ships positions during our regular patrols over the South China Sea, as even then there were attempts to plunder the wrecks. If we sighted anything suspicious the RN would dispatch something post-haste to investigate.
Of note it was possible to see at least one of the vessel's' superstructure underwater at low water.
Of note it was possible to see at least one of the vessel's' superstructure underwater at low water.
As we recovered 485 gold bars from the wreck of our cruiser HMS Edinburgh 200 miles off Murmansk, I think this took place in 1981, is this considered legal salvage even though a war grave was disturbed some 85 members of her crew going down with the ship after being torpedoed by a U boat?
As we recovered 485 gold bars from the wreck of our cruiser HMS Edinburgh 200 miles off Murmansk, I think this took place in 1981, is this considered legal salvage even though a war grave was disturbed some 85 members of her crew going down with the ship after being torpedoed by a U boat?
happened to detonate whilst the salvage vessel was overhead. 
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,854 Likes
on
1,222 Posts